Slashdot Mirror
Two New Fed GPS Trackers Found On SUV
jcombel writes with this excerpt:
"As the Supreme Court gets ready to hear oral arguments in a case Tuesday that could determine if authorities can track U.S. citizens with GPS vehicle trackers without a warrant, a young man in California has come forward to Wired to reveal that he found not one but two different devices on his vehicle recently. The 25-year-old resident of San Jose, California, says he found the first one about three weeks ago on his Volvo SUV while visiting his mother in Modesto, about 80 miles northeast of San Jose. After contacting Wired and allowing a photographer to snap pictures of the device, it was swapped out and replaced with a second tracking device. A witness also reported seeing a strange man looking beneath the vehicle of the young man’s girlfriend while her car was parked at work, suggesting that a tracking device may have been retrieved from her car. Then things got really weird when police showed up during a Wired interview with the man."
When this reporter drove down to meet Greg and photograph the second tracker with photographer Snyder, three police cars appeared at the location that had been pre-arranged with Greg, at various points driving directly behind me without making any verbal contact before leaving.
After moving the photo shoot to a Rotten Robbie gas station a mile away from the first location, another police car showed up. In this case, the officer entered the station smiling at me and turned his car around to face the direction of Greg’s car, a couple hundred yards away. He remained there while the device was photographed. A passenger in the police car, dressed in civilian clothes, stepped out of the vehicle to fill a gas container, then the two left shortly before the photo shoot was completed.
I bet that reporter thought that sort of thing only happened in *other* countries before that day.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
What does a citizen have to do to get this kind of personalized attention from the government? Most of the time they just ignore you unless it's time for them to steal money from your wallet.
Don't talk to him, HE is the GPS device!
A serious question, one that I hope folks take seriously because I truly cannot answer this:
If you were in front of the US Supreme Court and they asked you how this is fundamentally different than tracking your car through traditional police surveillance, how would you answer?
I struggle for an answer myself. It feels wrong, but as far as I can tell that isn't a valid legal argument.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Americans fear their government more now than at any time in history. Kind of funny if your from foreignland.
If you find a device like this on your car, have fun with it. Ship it across country - the government will know where the UPS guy is. Smash it open to see what is inside. Sell it on eBay. Report it to your local Sheriff as a suspicious device.
Seriously though...
Having cops follow you around to make their presence known is one hell of a way to use a covert surveillance device. The story isn't quite adding up.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
As a "foreigner" who emigrated to this country and likes to make a lot of jokes that could be taken out of context- I am almost positive that I must have been spied on- if not more than for a short period of time to realise how boring I am.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
1) Find a place where trains pass somewhat slowly
2) Wait for slow moving train
3) Stick tracker on outside of train car
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
For liberty and justice for all. *Must be 18, void where prohibited, some restrictions may apply, not available in all states.
In the article, it's stated that he bought the vehicle with cash from his wanted, drug dealing cousin. He even went as far to drive his cousin's wife to Mexico in the vehicle afterwards. It's no wonder that he was under surveillance.
Here's the gigantic problem with the GPS trackers...
If you're being tracked, you just stop driving. Also, turn off your mobile phone before leaving. While the GPS tracker in the car lasts 7-15 days, your mobile phone lasts maybe 3. What you do is "go camping" for like a month, go visit grandma, or something, and while you're out, pitch the tracker down a manhole. They'll can't claim vandalism to their GPS tracker if it's not supposed to exist right?
If someone was really a security risk, they wouldn't own a car to begin with. It seems this is reaching for low-hanging fruit, busting drug users and not the traffickers or producers, etc.
And to think, had the limey fog-breathers thought of this 260 years ago, there would be no United States!
Apparently, oppressive oligarchies are cyclical.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I'd just smash it up and toss it.
If they send you a bill, send one back charging them more than their bill.
So would anyone he will be running against.
The whole thing is rigged.
Would it be ok if a cop hid in the boot of your car without a warrant instead?
Are there any scanning devices to scan your car to see if you have one of these hidden somewhere?
I'm sure you can do a thorough search from time to time- but if I want to know if I have one- is there a device I can buy to scan my car that isn't expensive?
I suspect all the bad guys who are really trying to hide will just run GPS blockers on their cars.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
eBay!!
Arrest you for interfering with a police investigation.
Sounds like an attention whore to me. I could build a "tracking device" with some PCV pipe and get myself in the news, too.
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
have no expectation of privacy and can be tracked at will by the police, do police therefore have no expectation of privacy and can be tracked at will by citizens? Sounds like a great argument. Think I'll run out, buy a bunch of these trackers, and stick them to the undercarriages of cop cars and then set up a web site that reports the position of every cop car in the city at all times in case you, um, need to call the cops.
Either that must be the case, or cops must get a warrant to do this.
If neither is the case, then the only option left to Americans is to fire every single person in every level of government with extreme prejudice, convene a constitutional convention, and start all over again from scratch.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I'm undecided on whether federal agencies should need a warrant to use a tracking device on your car, but if the person of interest here, "Greg," is trying to insinuate that the government is tracking citizens at random big-brother style, that is wildly inaccurate.
Read the full article: by his own admission, his cousin is involved in a Mexican drug cartel, and was the previous owner of the SUV. His cousin recently fled to Mexico, after which "Greg" drove his cousin's wife to Tijuana and stayed there for a few days.
He noticed the tracking device after these events. He's clearly being investigated as part of the DEA's attempt to nail his cousin. Even if a warrant were required to track him, it seems likely a judge would have granted it here.
I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
The administration, which is attempting to overturn a lower court ruling that threw out a drug dealer’s conviction over the warrantless use of a tracker, argues that citizens have no expectation of privacy when it comes to their movements in public so officers don’t need to get a warrant to use such devices.
The irony, of course, is how bent out of shape public servants get when you turn the tables and record them.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If a particular action would be grounds for a restraining order if it occurred between private citizens, a warrant should be required before the police can engage in the same behavior.
So I agree that warrantless tracking is a bad thing. Let's get that out of the way right at the beginning.
What baffles me in this case is that they COULD HAVE GOTTEN A WARRANT!
Look. The guy's cousin is on the run for drug charges, possibly involving drug smuggling. Before taking off, he sells his car to this guy, who waits a month or two, then drives to Mexico, stays a few days, and then drives back. I'm not saying any of that is damning, but it would certainly raise questions in my mind if I were the local DEA or police representative. And assuming they had any evidence at all on the guy who fled the country, that ought to be enough to get a warrant to do some minimally invasive tracking. (Yes, it's invasive. But there isn't a person staring through his window all night, there's not an actual person following him around all the time, and so on.)
So why not go ask for a warrant? For that matter, why not ask for a warrant to do more checking on this guy and his cousin? THAT'S what bothers me about the whole thing. They had no particular reason to be underhanded about any of it, but they chose to anyway.
The guy should have attached it to a taxi. The cops would have spent weeks analyzing and investigating every taxi stop.
Y'all better get used to this though. If the courts take away their ability to install GPS trackers, they'll just subpoena your cell phone records. They're already installing license plate scanners in police vehicles and traffic cameras. In a few years we'll have massive government databases with the locations of license plate readings stored so they can construct a log of where every vehicle has been.
The age of the individual was fun and I'm glad I was around to see it. I'm just thankful I don't have kids - my genes aren't a good fit for the future we're creating.
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
For the police investigation on yourself that you weren't aware was in place? I don't think you *can* do that. You'd have to KNOW it was police property and KNOW it was part of an investigation and then wilfully destroy it JUST because it might incriminate you.
And after all, what you did was remove a suspicious unmarked device from your property that you didn't place there? You'd have to have one HELL of a lawyer to charge someone for interfering with a police investigation for them removing something that shouldn't have been on their personal property, that's like arresting someone for removing a deliberately-introduced virus on their machine that their AV picked up and charging them with interfering.
Personally, I'd just immediately phone the bomb squad and tell them I had a suspicious device attached to my car, get the street evacuated, get the news crews in and then let them explain what that suspicious device was. I bet you could get a thousand people and several fire crews to your house before someone could roll up to remove their device, especially if the car happened to be parked in a sensitive area, say the centre of a large city near your kids school.
But then, I live in London, and after the 80's and 90's with the IRA and the 00's with us inheriting America's terrorist paranoia, I bet I could cause more fuss that would immediately draw attention to dubious police practices in a matter of minutes than a post on Slashdot would do.
But more importantly: Have nothing to do with your drug-cartel cousin and anything connected with his activities or property. If you didn't notice the tracker, what else is stashed in that car, that's of interest to the police, that you also haven't yet noticed and couldn't explain away?
It just doesn't make sense. Also, I have no doubt the government would make smaller devices than the one's pictured and moreover there is probably a backdoor in everyone's cell phone where the NSA can find your location instantly anyway. Why track his car? Unless the government knows that the car actually comes from an alternate universe and they are waiting to see if he meets Walternate at some point. Cue Fringe theme song.
if your life is such a big joke then why should I care?
I mean, I wish they'd stick a tracker on the bottom of my elderly Citroen. They've got about ten seconds after I press the remote central locking, before it drops the suspension on them. Is tracking someone really worth having two and half tonnes of very solid steel dropped on you?
Most tinfoil hatters are convinced the gov't wants to track their every move. They'll be so upset when they don't find one of these on their car.
Hmmm...BRB, gotta go make some fake GPS trackers to stick on some vehicles...
Vote for the person who understands that you have nothing left to lose if you allow your government to steal your liberties and freedoms for you.
It's in my sig.
You can't handle the truth.
I just happen to see something strange attached to my property. I take this object and put it on, um, the rear end of a brass statue. Because my life has alot of unemployed time, I wonder off somewhere and get out my digital camera and start clicking pictures of anyone who happens by to maybe take this strange object for their own, personal?, needs.
Question. Would watching anyone fondling the rear end of a statue go viral on YouTube?
"So why not go ask for a warrant?"
Well, if the precedent is that no warrant is needed, then why go through the unnecessary work?
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, citizen.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
ask yourself what the GOP would say if he didn't?
Now ask yourself if Bush hadn't instituted this crap, would Obama have started it? doubtful...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Well, yes. My thought was more that if they'd gone for the warrant, they could have done a lot more useful things than just stick a tracker under his car, though. Like actually investigating to see if he was doing anything he shouldn't be.
STEP 1: Attach it to someone elses car ... someone like Herman Cain ... or your local mayor ... or the mayor's wife or kid ...
Only then do you call the media to say "Someone set us up the bomb."
It's like the first thing you do when you find a dead body floating in your swimming pool - before calling the authorities, you put it back in your neighbors' pool.
I believe I'd treat something like this the same as I would any other unidentified, obviously non-factory object found on a vehicle with no explanation for how it got there. I'd call 911, and tell them I just found what I believe looks like a pipe bomb attached to my vehicle. I'd follow that up immediately with calls to each of the local TV stations, letting them know where they could watch the police bomb squad in action.
How much would you bet the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing? It could be an interesting and entertaining afternoon. Let THEM blow it up. Hopefully not while still attached to my vehicle.
so, would we get in trouble if we started attaching random boxes to police cars, and politicians cars? i'm just curious. i must say, i'm getting fed up with all of this warrantless tracking going on. I'm setting up a website where we can track government officials, and their families. post pictures, and detail their daily outings. track them day and night. i think its time they learned what it feels like to be hunted.
... and the feds didn't expect it to be discovered?
Sounds like the feds needs to hire a bunch of expert "hiders of things in plain sight" (Geocachers) to give them some advice on disguising these things a bit more. Honestly, I've spent hours looking for some caches only to discover they are literally in front of my face.
Who gives a crap what the GOP says? The GOP wasn't elected president. And if they complain, explain the whole constitution thing to them again, publicly.
Don't you get it? D and R are playing you. It's good cop, bad cop, nothing less. Neither of them serve anyone but the top 1%. Making excuses for Obama only serves to protect the oligarchy.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The level of cost involved used to provide a limit on the intrusiveness of the search. Police used to need to provide at least 6+ officers (2 on 8 hour shifts) to watch an individual, that means that following someone involves substantial cost to the department. The cost itself provided a check on the intrusion.
Using a tracker changes that entirely. The police can quickly check many, many trackers from a central location. They don't need to invest 6+ officers to each individual, it's 6+ suspects per officer! All of a sudden, large scale intrusion is cheap and the limit is no longer present.
That's the point you need the courts to step in and put limits in place.
Try *assassinate* underaged US citizens (born on US soil) because they could have been associated with (suspected) terrorists!
I am not talking about al-Awlaki the senior (I can see how people might be divided about him, though, I'd say, if proper Judiciary inquest into his doings were held in the open and conclude with "bring dead or alive", I would not mind much), but his 16 years old son!
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/
http://www.dailypaul.com/181607/obamas-assassination-order-and-the-secret-memo
Fed up yet?
Paul B.
So I'm thinking... GPS, nice lithium battery, these sound like things I would like to part out so that I could hack the components into some of the robots that I fool with. So, anyway, once somebody puts that stuff on a car, it is a gift to the car owner, right? It's abandon property. So all we need to do is set up a marketplace to clear these things (heck, even eBay) and there are enough electronics hackers looking for cheap GPS units that there should be a ready market for the parts. Once every kid in the neighborhood decides that checking under cars for tracking devices is more lucrative that collecting pop cans, problem solved.
1) Find a nearby cat ... Profit
2) Attach said device to cat (duct tape, collar or other means)
3) Watch Federal Officers attempt to retrieve they're hardware
after they realize your car can now climb walls, cross gardens and go through back doors with ease
4) Hilarity ensues
5)
...and then place calls to faraway lands or 1-900 numbers. You could probably rack up tens of thousands of dollars in phone or data costs by the time they realized what was going on. Maybe even more...
Running these cellular cards is not difficult. You could also read where it is SMSing the GPS info to...and modify the send positions that are well away from wherever you are. Perhaps even send the location of the police, DEA, FBI, local Republican campaign offices, church...
Then drop the package with the relay off in a nice area in the middle of a very public space and film the escapades with an HD cam.
Performance art.
Given that the police are known to do this and might well even if it is declared illegal, and that most of us don't crawl under our cars all that often, I see 2 options.
1) Block the GPS, ala http://www.thesignaljammer.com/products/GPS-Jammer.html (cheaper available).
2) You could use a cell jammer, but that may be inconvenient. Anybody know an affordable RF detector to easily pick up the cell transmitter?
3) Profit? Sorry, couldn't resist.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
Here's the NPR story about the Supreme Court argument today. I think the full transcript will be on the Supreme Court web site.
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/08/142143552/justices-weigh-technology-and-privacy-in-gps-case
....
Justices Invoke '1984' During GPS Case Arguments
by Nina Totenberg
Dreeben, in his argument, urged the court to stick to the line it has drawn in the past — no warrant is needed for surveillance of activities conducted on public roads.
Chief Justice John Roberts, however, seemed skeptical about applying that rationale to new technologies, asking if the government could "put a GPS device on our cars and monitor us?"
Dreeben responded that under the government's theory and the court's precedents, "the justices of this court, when driving on the streets, have no greater expectation of privacy" against a GPS device attached to the car "than they would if the FBI followed them around the clock."
Justice Stephen Breyer struck a more ominous tone, asserting that "if you win this case, then there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movements of every citizen in the United States," a scenario that "sounds like 1984." Discussion of Orwell's dystopic novel arose five times during the argument.
Related NPR Stories
Do Police Need Warrants For GPS Tracking Devices? Nov. 8, 2011
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Dreeban to explain the difference between the warrantless use of GPS devices and the general search authority that outraged the Founding Fathers and inspired the Fourth Amendment ban on searches without court authorization. Dreeben maintained, however, that putting a GPS device on a car is not a search. And he seemed to suggest that people have different expectations of privacy in an era of technological advances.
That is "too much for me," interjected Justice Elena Kagan, suggesting that people would think their privacy interests are violated by having a robotic device monitoring their movements 24 hours a day.
Seeking to frame the issue differently, Justice Samuel Alito said that the "heart of the problem" is that until the Internet and computer age, it was very difficult to gather private information about an individual. "But with computers, it's now so simple to amass an enormous amount of information about people. ... So how do we deal with this?"
But Chief Justice Roberts focused more narrowly on the government's position that no warrant is required. "Your argument is, it doesn't depend how much suspicion you have, it doesn't depend on how urgent it is. Your argument is you can do it, period. It doesn't have to be limited in any way, right?" Replied Dreeben, "That is correct."
So just how difficult is it to get a warrant? Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put that question to the government's lawyer. Dreeben conceded it would not have been difficult in this case, but, he noted, a warrant requires a showing that there is probable cause to believe a crime has occurred, and he said police most often use GPS devices at the early stages of an investigation, before there is evidence of a crime.
Sotomayor asked how many GPS devices are used this way. Dreeben said he didn't know about local and state use, but the number used by federal law enforcement was "in the low thousands" each year.
Following Dreeben to the lectern, attorney Leckar contended that because the GPS was placed on Jones' car, it was a trespass on his property and amounted to an unconstitutional seizure, a commandeering of his car to provide data. The justices, however, were looking for how to address a broader question.
Justice Anthony Kennedy asked what the difference is between putting a GPS device on a car and placing 30 deputies along a route to conduct surveillance. "It seems to me what you're saying is that the police have to use the most inefficient me
Am I the only one who's shocked at the lack of sophistication of these GPS devices? Looks like a cross between an undergrad electronics project and a "spy toy" that you'd buy for your kid. Pathetic.
And there is a reason why Obama can't step away from the GPS device? Can't find AG Holders phone number? Or maybe he just doesn't answer the phone because of Fast and Furious? By the way.. its Clinton's fault.
I guess you caught me then. I must confess, I have a secret army that searches Slashdot high and low and mods me up for everything and mods you down, specifically, on every post that they find. Even when you are anonymous, because I wrote a kit that gets your posting IP address from the Slashdot server farm. It's a personal vendetta.
--
BMO
It's ok. I live in Texas. If I find you messing with my car I'm allowed to shoot you in the head. Problem Solved!!
There is the possibility that the judge would not issue the warrant.
However the fact that the cops knew that he was meeting up with the Wired editor makes me think that they have some other form of reconnaissance on him. Most likely they have his phone tapped too, which would require a warrant. There is nothing in the article that confirms that there is no warrant issued for the GPS device (how would you confirm a negative like that?). There very well could be one, just under seal.
...The guy's cousin is on the run for drug charges...
And we know this how, exactly?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
They probably do have a warrant, since they are looking for a family member who runs drugs and its likely that he knows where the guy is hiding. Hell he's driving the guys car.
They are probably also wiretapping his cell phone. How else would they know about the rendevous with Wired?
Because it's in the article? Well... the fact that the cousin left the country unexpectedly and was probably involved in the drug trade is in the article. I suppose it doesn't say he was charged with anything, so I overstated. I should have said "The guy's cousin left the country suddenly, and his relatives say he was probably fleeing because he was involved in the drug trade." But again... it was in the article.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2515424&cid=37990720
Actually now that I think about it, I would probably sell it on ebay.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
What baffles me in this case is that they COULD HAVE GOTTEN A WARRANT!
How do you know they didnt?
You people watch WAY too much CSI. So going to your neighbourign country and having a relative somewhat involved in the drug trade (probably more than 50% of people) is worth tracking someone?
This guy was an american. I am sure that americans can just drive to mexico whenever they want. Besides, even if he did go meet his cousin in mexico, there is absolutely zero proof that the guy who is being tracked committed any crime!
fear of drugs is a hell of a way to give up your civil liberties. I blame CSI and shit.
-
Rather than reporting the GPS device as a bomb, attach the same sort of explosive dye packs banks use to mark robbers to the GPS? Banks use them, they must be lawful!
Isn't there a limit where it becomes harassment?
Sure! Just call the police and...
Oh.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Driving up to the local DEA office, walking in with the device, and waving it around to the receptionist.
Demand to talk to the office accounts payable guy, and tell them that you charge the standard mileage rate for toting around government property, and s/he should come outside and mark the mileage on the car.
Then bill the feds $0.44 cents a mile for every mile you drive with it on.
I don't think you'd ever collect, but it sounds like a fun thing to do- you could even mess with them in small claims court after a while.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
this is why I go on a 600 mile road trip spelling out I know your watching
...The guy's cousin left the country suddenly...
Ah, so when you see speculative accusations in print, that makes it more believable and worth repeating as fact then?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
When I see a quote from the person being tracked saying that his cousin, who used to own the truck, left the country suddenly and was probably fleeing due to being a drug dealer, then yes. I find it no less credible than the rest of the story.
I've never actually seen an episode of CSI. I don't watch much TV at all, really. But here's the thing. You're right: Americans can pretty much go to Mexico whenever they want. But if their stated reason is to go visit a relative who was likely a drug dealer, that might be suspicious.
You're also right that there's no proof of a crime. But there might be reason to be suspicious. So far we only have one person's take, and it was the person with the most reason to make tracking him look unreasonable. The police have a responsibility to investigate things that look suspicious. There's a fine line there somewhere between "investigating something suspicious" and "abusing police authority"; I'm not convinced this crossed it.
Now: I DO think that they should have a warrant. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but they're not answering questions. That DOES bother me. But I can see why they'd want to know more about this guy.
See sig... Let's hope you never get jury duty
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
So which parts of the article do you believe? None of them? All of them? Only the parts that fit your belief system?
Judging by the comments in this thread, people believe that:
1) The guy in question is obviously not suspicious at all.
2) The guy in question is telling us everything in a completely balanced and impartial way.
3) The police are obviously trying to track him just because they felt like it, and have no reason at all.
My point was that, first of all, they might, in fact, have reason to be suspicious of him. Or, they might NOT be suspicious of him: they might be trying to figure out where his cousin is, and decided this was the right way to do it. We don't know, because we don't have a comment from the police. Second, I don't really believe much of what anyone in the article said. I find it likely that he has a cousin who was believed to be a drug dealer. I find it likely that there was a tracking device on his car. I find it likely that the police showed up while he was being interviewed. Beyond that? We, the readers, don't really have anything convincing in any direction. We have no evidence that he's telling the truth, we have no evidence that the police didn't have a warrant or cause to put a tracker on his car, we don't even really have any evidence that the police DID put a tracker on his car.
So, yes. I believe the quote from him that his brother was probably involved in drug dealing just as much as I believe the rest of the article. Which is to say, I take it as a possibility, but in no way proven to be true.
What baffles me in this case is that they COULD HAVE GOTTEN A WARRANT!
How do you know that they didn't?
How will Lightsquared's potential GPS interference play into this? If the company is allowed to continue as promised by the FCC, won't all this be moot as the weaker GPS signals won't be reliably received by anyone anymore? Also...the pictures I saw of the GPS device while attached to the spare-tire well of the car seemed to show a suspiciously clean nylon sleeve. I'd imagine any amount of travel on roads would result in the accumulation of dust/dirt that'd show up on the black nylon pretty well.
Once again the good Democrat is foiled by those bad Republicans. If it's that easy to push the President around, he shouldn't be President. H4rr4r is right, it's a rigged game. The sooner people realize that, the better.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
If it's that easy to push the President around, he shouldn't be President.
One reason his approval numbers are so low is because liberals are upset that he and the rest of the Democrats has been so seemingly easy to bully. So both sides are souring on his almost non-stop attempts to compromise with the GOP with little benefit to show for it.
Being willing to compromise is a good thing, but you have to start on your own turf. If you start in the middle and the other side then says 'meet at 3/4' because that's 'half way' between middle and their position, you should see that they aren't interested in compromise - at least after the first year of that.
I put most of the blame on Harry Reid myself. He has been a completely ineffective leader in the Senate. If the GOP wants to filibuster...make them. Shut down the country until they are shown to be what they are. Obama didn't push Reid to do this so is equally liable.
It doesn't, however, do anything positive for the GOP. They are still staunch political tools with no plan other than give money to the rich.
As for being a rigged game, it has become something of that, but fortunately we *can* start taking it back if we want. If someone isn't doing what you like, vote them out. Not always easy, but it's not supposed to be either.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Revisiting this because I think you're hilarious.
So name one of my alternate logins.
You claim to have proof. So prove it.
--
BMO
LEO's didn't get a warrant for the same reason the President didn't bother to get Congressional authorization for his war in Libya - to establish a precedent that they don't have to.
Nevermind that warrants can be granted with minutes, where is the "it will save time and money" exception in the Bill of Rights?
Justice Stephen Breyer told Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben that, “If you win this case, there is nothing to prevent the police or government from monitoring 24 hours a day every citizen of the United States.”
100 years ago, there was no Clean Water Act, no Clean Air Act, no FDA, and no Environmental Protection Agency. Meaning if someone else poisoned your food, your water, your air, you were shit out of luck.
100 years ago, you were at the mercy of monopolies that dominated entire sectors of the economy - railroads, oil, steel.
100 years ago, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states - and some Loons like Ron Paul still hold that belief. Meaning that, among other things, state-based gun laws that give gun nuts the vapors would be perfectly legal.
100 years ago, child labor was still legal and there was no middle class.
100 years ago there was no Medicare, leaving the middle age to die in the streets from easily-treated ailments. Nowadays that only happens to 24 year old fathers with toothaches, thanks to the miracle of for-profit health insurance companies.
Could go on, but you get the point. Which is....
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Just because health care and funding from education come from the same overall government that throws away a trillion dollars a year on the military-industrial-complex, when we haven't had an invasion in 200 years, doesn't mean that both forms of spending are a total waste.
Just because food, air, and water regulations come from the same overall government that spys on you without warrants doesn't mean they're both examples of authoritarian overreach.
If you had the same jaundiced eye towards businesses, you'd want them all banned because running a corporation means you'll be dumping toxic waste into the river while grouping your secretary. But you probably don't paint with such a broad brush because that would be unbelievably stupid.
We, the readers, don't really have anything convincing in any direction. We have no evidence that he's telling the truth...
Exactly.. So what is your point? You're just digging yourself deeper.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I ain't even mad. You can declare victory all you want, man.
You have yet to name a single one of my purported (by you and nobody else) other aliases here.
I'll let you in on a little secret. This is my one and only alias on Slashdot. For reals. Sockpuppetry is too much work. Only those with way too much time on their hands and/or something to hide or mental illness actually do it. So go ahead, I am anxious to see you reveal who I also am on here. It should be entertaining.
--
BMO
The "nobody" is just you.
Again, you have made the claim that I have multiple accounts.
So name one. I want to see who else I am. Pick a name.
--
BMO
Yet you can't point to a single account that you think is mine.
Please, prove your point, or walk away in defeat.
Shit or get off the pot.
--
BMO
Getting a warrant is an admission that you think you might need one.